Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bring back the real Piotr!

Expand Messages
  • Ben McGarr
    ... and when he comes back, I hope he gives the Gasiorowski Definitive Statement as to this Bibbs Jute/Geat business. Maybe I have read too many Nineteenth
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ... and when he comes back, I hope he gives the Gasiorowski
      Definitive Statement as to this Bibbs Jute/Geat business. Maybe I
      have read too many Nineteenth Century books for my own good, but up
      until now I'd always assumed that these Iotes Iutes chaps were one
      and the same to them Beowulf folks, and had just moved around a bit.
      All on the same grounds as this invocation of the 'funny g', as in
      the one the Gaelic speakers use now.



      William Butler Jutes ;o)


      Steve said;
      <<<ge:atas> in Beowulf and Widsith>>
      I have a note here that from an H. Bibbs: "The name Geats is actually
      zeats,
      and the yogh, "z", is pronounced "y" before fronting vowels, so the
      correct
      transcription would be Yeats, which is close enough to Jeats (Jutes)
      to be
      argued that they are one and the same." I'm as likely to believe H.
      Bibbs,
      whoever he is, at this point. So I don't find anything here you say
      more
      convincing.
    • x99lynx@aol.com
      ravichaudhary2000
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        "ravichaudhary2000" <ravi9@h...>
        <<Having followed this list for some time ,I would like to suggest that Steve
        is getting unnecssaily upset at some good natured banter from Piotr.>>

        You're of course right, Ravi. And I do apologize to Piotr for going
        overboard.
        Sorry, Piotr. And sorry to the list (except for George, of course.)

        Steve
      • Piotr Gasiorowski
        Steve, the ancient texts confused them as well, for precisely the same reason that modern amateurs do. It is only today, with the tools of comparative
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Steve, the ancient texts confused them as well, for precisely the same reason that modern amateurs do. It is only today, with the tools of comparative linguistics and our knowledge of the _local_ North European sources (such as Old English texts and the Old Norse sagas) that we are able to clear the confusion. I repeat: nobody who knew anything about the local affairs called the Gauts "Guts", "Goths" or "Jutes". Fellow Scandinavians called them <Gautar> and nothing else. Old English texts distinguish the Gotan (sg. Gota) 'Goths' from the Ge:atas (sg. Ge:at) 'Geats' with 100% consistency. These names are not a distortions of each other but phonologically regular reflexes of *gut-o:n- and *gaut-a-.
           
          Piotr
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:38 AM
          Subject: [tied] Bring back the real Piotr!

          But wait!! according to Piotr, the "ancient sources" had them all correct and
          straight !!!!  Obviously, they were professional linguists (who probably
          never heard the words spoken by Germanic speakers) who had the modern day
          linguistic advantage over 19th-century Anglo-Saxonists and could mysteriously
          tell the difference between Gutes, Gauts, Geats, Jutes, Goths, Gountoi,
          Gutones, Gothones, Gotones, Gutae, Gountigots, etc., even though they were a
          thousand miles away and speaking some very different languages.

          Piotr, you are doing what the Atlanteans do.  You are just doing it with a
          more arcane mysticism to get at your results.  The ancient text tell all! You
          just have to have the magical knowledge to read them. <snip, snip, snip>

           
        • Sergejus Tarasovas
          ... From: x99lynx@aol.com [mailto:x99lynx@aol.com] Sent: 2002 m. spalio 2 d. 00:39 To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com Subject: [tied] Bring back the real Piotr ...
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Message
            -----Original Message-----
            From: x99lynx@... [mailto:x99lynx@...]
            Sent: 2002 m. spalio 2 d. 00:39
            To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [tied] Bring back the real Piotr 
             
            >> Wulfila generally transliterated Greek <o>s into Gothic as
            <au>.  So in Greek perhaps this would read "gotoi" or even "gothoi.") 
             
            Not in Greek proper. <au> was just that in Old Greek, and began to render [av]~[af] in Middle Greek. The reason Wulfila have chosen <au> for Gothic open [O] is obvious -- Greek <o> was (and still is) a close [o] and the <o>-grapheme didn't seem to fit.
             
            Sergei
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.